Rank: Super forum user 
|
Was discussing this with a mate the other day and we are of the same opinion but his client disagrees. So this is how it plays out
New build for an office complex. Main building has been built and is watertight. Contractors have moved to another job, awaiting new company to come in and complete internal fit out. I know it's a mad concept. Why not get the first comapny to do it lock stock and barrel. But in the meantime, client has an oddjob self emplioyed bloke doing a bit of painting, tidying up, laying flagstones etc etc. We are both of the mind that the site is open and therefore shpould have regular site visits to ensure the safety and compliance issues. Client says, site is closed as there is no construction work being undertaken. So no site visits. This is now in it's second or third month of this situation. Are we right in our assumption that the site is open? And if so How do we communicate this to the client easily withoiut ruffling to many feathers?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Hi Mark The title of your thread is "Open or Closed" but I don't think that is the key question. In terms of the scenario you present, it is quite common to get one contractor to construct and building and get in others to do the fit out - sometimes, as example, a developer will build the complex and then the prospective tenants would get in their own fit-out contractors. In CDM terms much will come down to how the client(s) defines the "project", but even if that extends all the way to completion of fit-out, nothing to stop the work of one Principal Contractor coming to an end and with the appointment of another PC to do the fit-out. All about making sure that the first PC provides sufficient information including Health and Safety File(s) to enable the client(s) to provide adequate Pre Construction Information to those next at the location. As for your odd job person, some work will undoubtedly be "construction work" within the definition of CDM, some perhaps not. Whether the client needs monthly visits by a health and safety person during this period is entirely different. What they need to do is ensure that appropriate management arrangements are in place throughout the duration of the construction phase(s). If from the client(s)'s perspective they see value in client-procured visits by a health and safety professional they may reasonably determine that those visits should be done on the basis of variables including past performance, volume and type of ongoing work, and the risks likely to be around at any time. Would they get much value from a monthly visit to look at how one person is going about some relatively minor tasks? Quite likely that they would get more value from getting the health and safety professional to chase why the Health and Safety File(s) have not been handed over or are not fit for purpose. P
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
@Peter
Thank you very much for the comprehensive answer. I'll pass the info on. Reason why the discussion came about is the lack of regard for H&S by client in the first place. They have had a prohibition notice served on them during the early stage of the build, about 2yrs ago. So they are on the HSE radar to a ceertain extent. But I'll let that battle to the interested partys about regular visits and wether the H&S file has been handed over or not. I'm not so sure it will of if all that was discussed was true. But you never know.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Hi Mark In 25 years+ of working on CDM projects (that have, in the main, been well managed) I have very rarely seen the HSF(s) handed over on time; even rarer for the File(s) to be suitable for the recipient or, usually, recipients. Not helped by the HSE guidance being easy to interpret as meaning only one Health and Safety File. But, even for the simplest new build project, perhaps a factory, there are so many stakeholders. Needs an electricity supply, probably gas supply, water, sewage and telecomms connections + an access road and more. So in addition to the primary client, there are lots of other parties whose HSF information (however kept) needs to be updated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Originally Posted by: peter gotch  Hi Mark In 25 years+ of working on CDM projects (that have, in the main, been well managed) I have very rarely seen the HSF(s) handed over on time; even rarer for the File(s) to be suitable for the recipient or, usually, recipients. Not helped by the HSE guidance being easy to interpret as meaning only one Health and Safety File. But, even for the simplest new build project, perhaps a factory, there are so many stakeholders. Needs an electricity supply, probably gas supply, water, sewage and telecomms connections + an access road and more. So in addition to the primary client, there are lots of other parties whose HSF information (however kept) needs to be updated.
Don't get me startefd on electricity. The sub station for the town is on the voundary of the site. There are poles and cables across the site but their current route impinges on the site of another building. So needs to be moved before building can be built in Ph 2. All parties have agreed that it needs to be moved but no one wants to pay the £20K to move it. All parties are saying the cost is for someone else.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Hi Mark One of those things that should have been sorted out during the planning of the project. If it was a major infrastructure project, such as turning a road into a dual carriageway, the diversion would be included for as "accommodation works" and usually the ultimate client would foot most, or all, of the bill even if the actual procurement of the diversion might be done by the utility company. HSE's fatality records include one case where a roofer was electrocuted when standing just 1.5m below the overhead power cable. Not clear whether the new house actually had planning permission but a clear case of diversion being an essential element of the design (or moving the footprint of the house). P
|
 1 user thanked peter gotch for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Originally Posted by: Mark-W All parties are saying the cost is for someone else.
Whoevers planning application was approved
|
4 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Originally Posted by: Mark-W All parties are saying the cost is for someone else.
Whoevers planning application was approved
|
4 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.